This is more of a 2 part question. Should child porn that does not include a real child be illegal? If so, who is being harmed by it?

The other question is; does giving a pedophile access to “imitation” children give them an outlet for their desire, so they won’t try to engage with real children, or does it just reinforce their desire, thus helping them to rationalize their behavior and lead to them being more encouraged to harm real children?

I’ve heard psychologists discuss both sides, but I don’t think we have any real life studies to go off of because the technology is so new.

I’m just curious what the other thought out there are from people who are more liberty minded.

  • MentalEdge
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We are in an anonymous text thread. There is only talk here, the moment you began demanding a walk, that was just you sticking your fingers into your ears and going “laalaalaa”. I will not stop trying to pull them out.

    And I’m not afraid of admitting I care. Maybe I can’t change your stance on this matter, but I want to at least make you think about how utterly idiotic your discussion methods are. How you’ve undermined your own position by sidestepping a real discussion, and hence leaving your actual points undefended. All you have left is to keep claiming you’re still on top, but with no language to actually show that is the case.

    • Maharashtra
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      “This is the end of discussion!”

      Right. Self-importance, helluiva drug, am I right?

      We are in an anonymous text thread

      …but it didn’t prevent you from using “everyone who may read it will think you idiot” argument.

      You’re not thinking straight.

      Would that be all, or are you going to continue, still trying to avoid your responsibilites?

      • MentalEdge
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What responsibilities? What part of what I’ve said tells you I’m avoiding them?

        I want you to see the errors you’ve made in presenting your argument and dismantling mine. I point out third parties because I want to provoke YOU into taking an outside look at your own words.

        Then we’ll be able to talk for real. Not this mudslinging that idiots do.

        • Maharashtra
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          What responsibilities?

          Classic.

          Same old repertoire of a coward faced with “proof yourself right” dillema.

          Anyway.

          Would that be all?

          • MentalEdge
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I see you’re in the final stages of clamming up completely. This string of non-responses is an attempt at annoying me until I go away.

            You’ve given up on trying to actually prove me wrong, because you can’t. Or at least don’t know how to properly try.

            Please, figure it out. If not for me, then the next exchange you engage in.

            • Maharashtra
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              I see

              What I don’t see is any proof that your ideas arn’t anything but pro-pedophila propaganda that is meant to be “someone else’s problem”.

              But, of course, you won’t ever deliver any kind of proof that it’s not.

              So, would that be all?

              • MentalEdge
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I keep laughing at this “someone elses problem” point. I can’t refute it without revealing way too much personal info, its such a perfect non-argument.

                You don’t know shit about how close I’ve been to these matters irl, and I can’t tell you.

                • Maharashtra
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  Keep it to the single branch of discussion, since you don’t have much to say anyway, please.

                  • MentalEdge
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    How about three fronts? I have a lot to say so more bite-sized bits would help get through you non-existent attention span.

                  • MentalEdge
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    No. I’ve played by your bullshit rules long enough. Fight me on two fronts, or walk away.

          • MentalEdge
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            And for the record, these attempts at my character are pointless, even if I were everything you accuse me of, that still wouldn’t invalidate what I have to say.

            Dismantling someone’s character, does not automatically dismantle their argument.

            • Maharashtra
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              You should think before you began makeing pro-pedophilia claims and then pretending you didn’t, while also avoiding the responsibility of delivering a proof when called on your bullshit.

              But you didn’t.

              Hence my full right to call you what you are.

              Now, would that be all?

              • MentalEdge
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Oh for fucks sake. You didn’t even understand what I had to say. If you did, you’d be delivering counterarguments, not demands for proof of claims I didn’t even make.

                Get over yourself.

                • Maharashtra
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  01 year ago

                  Oh for fucks sake.

                  …cried the guy who contines long past his announcement that it is indeed the end of the dicussion.

                  Because, once an addict always an addict, right? ALl those beautiful words you say, they need to be re-read, the flow of adrenaline has to continue, long past the logic has left the room, right?

                  Would that be all?

                  • MentalEdge
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    You’re right here with me, though… Don’t fall on your sword as you go for yet another ad hominem.

                    At this point, I’m just trying to leave you with some thoughts, hoping some of them sink in and make you a better debater.